Template talk:Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see Talk:Buddhism for some comments about this template. - Nat Krause 17:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I removed Buddhist meditation from the top of the template. It's an important subject, but a vast one, and the existing article is extremely stubby. I don't think it's a good idea to have it in the template until it has a much broader scope. - Nat Krause 05:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Alphabetization 2 Apology 3 Need improvement 4 Picture 5 Adding template 6 What symbolizes Buddhism 7 headings 8 Tripartite 9 Template shaping up 10 Concepts 11 needs more Japan 12 Updated image 13 Bhavacakra 14 Template colors 15 Major Figures: Bodhidharma? Tilopa? 16 Template size: "terse" parameter 17 Later movements/teachers

[edit] Alphabetization

Ah, I'd alphabetized the list after it had taken me a little time to find "Texts". I'd nearly gone to add Buddhist texts myself. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 10:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I accidentally screwed up when creating a new template based on this one, and replaced this one by the new one. I immediately reverted the change; this was not intended as vandalism.

[edit] Need improvement

Someone who know more about Buddhism should help improve this template. Templates of other religions Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism are all well organized except Buddhism. Someone please improve this template. Janviermichelle 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please check here Template:Buddhism3. Working on a new and better template. Please help.Janviermichelle 11:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the old one, in your estimation? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot more informative now than it used to be. The only major improvement I can think of is a better picture. The present wheel is rather grainy. --Tydaj 13:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the photo with one I created. Please let me know your thoughts... --thedOnut 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It contains more links; I'm not sure that really makes it more informative. The tradeoff is that it takes up a lot more space. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I know.. you're right. It takes up a lot more space. But other religions are also using about-the-same-size templates, so... people might think that kind of template helps. And I feel that it helps (especially for the people who are new to buddhism)Janviermichelle 07:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone improve this template? Check Template:Christianity and you'll find it really helpful. I'm not sure this template would help people who're looking for "what the buddhism is". I tried to improve this template and... anyone (who knows buddhism well) please add/edit/delete categories or rearrange/redistribute the links. Template:Islam also gives me a big picture of how to navigate the huge islam-encyclopedia. Janviermichelle 07:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Why the wheel? How about lotus? Janviermichelle 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Change it! That's what being bold is all about. Netscott 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the photo with one I created. Please let me know your thoughts... --thedOnut 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the wheel because it is recognizable and actually useful as an icon, whereas this symbol was made up for Wikipedia. (Similar to how I prefer the crescent for the Islam template, but people are way too whiny about that one.) Ashibaka tock 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this symbol is okay. I personally don't like the wheel... though my parents are buddhists and I've visited tons of south korean temples when i was a child, the wheel is not familiar to me. Janviermichelle 17:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess a swastika would seem inappropriate ...—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding template

how do I add the template to a page? The Sakyamuni Buddha page doesn't have this template...

[edit] What symbolizes Buddhism

Is there any symbol or picture that could symbolize buddhism and satisfies all (or most) sects of buddhism? it could be the wheel, lotus, swastika, or something else. - Party A

they do have a wheel ON a lotus - Party B

The most common symbol in the Buddhist world, I suppose, is the image of the Buddha himself, as seen in the familiar Buddha statue. Apart from the image of a person, the next most common symbol, in my experience, is most likely the swastika. If we consider this to be inappropriate for use here, the dharma wheel, which we have been using, is quite common, and it was adopted as an official symbol by the World Fellowship of Buddhists. However, the Donut's Buddha-in-lotus image is also quite nice; I've never seen anything quite like it before, but it combines two very traditional symbols: the Buddha image and the lotus.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Buddha-in-lotus image is quite nice. I think the statue of Buddha itself (including the one in the lotus) is the most relevant. religion facts. Janviermichelle 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The oldest representation of the Buddha is a Bodhi tree (the Buddha himself gave permission to use the Bodhi tree as a representation of himself - in his absence that is). Also Bodhi leafs are also quite popular. In India some of the rockcave-monasteries of Ellora have door-openings in the shape of a Bodhi leaf, so also the Bodhi leaf is an old symbol.Sacca 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nat, thank you. I remember reading with you in July, about how we were on the wheel of Buddhism and how "we" needed a new one. So it came to me to outline together. I love creating simple images! Frankly, I'm so well received by everyone! Thedonut 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] headings

Bold face of the headings are not showing up?

They do with meSacca

They do with me as well! <|:-)

[edit] Tripartite

I removed the mention of tripartite and now the link is again called schools of buddhism since that term is more clear, and the link refers to an article which mentions all the many many subschools. Also in the past there were many more schools than just 3 (there were for example about 18 - 20 early buddhist schools). Tripartite buddhism should refer to an article about commonalities and differences between Mahayana, Vajrayana and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-Theravada-Hinayana-Nikaya-Buddhism, not to a list of all schools. Tripartite is also a term which is generally not used in this context, although I can see why Nat (?) choose to use it. But I think Wkipedia should better stick with what is common usage. Sacca 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template shaping up

Pretty nice if I do say so myself!  : )

[edit] Concepts

I propose putting the 'fundamentals' and 'philosophy/in depth' together under 'fundamental concepts' with a link to 'buddhist concepts', because they're all fundamental as far as I can see. Right now 'philosophy' is on top of the second list of concepts under the name 'in depth', but that name doesn't cover the subjects below it very well, and it might give the impression that using the four noble truths you can't go really deep? Also philosophy doesn't really do the job. A better discription would be 'in width' really, because they're just more concepts to use in contemplation or reflection. Anyway I think the seperation is quite artificial and it would be better to put them in one group. greetings, Sacca 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think those in the fundamentals are really fundamentals.. The basic things that should be done to reach the status of nirvana, but cosmology and karma etc are, i guess, not that fundamental relatively. what do you think? i'm not an expert by the way. Janviermichelle 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology maybe not to reach Nirvana, but it is a integrated part of the general teachings of Buddha. But certainly when one doesn't believe bad causes have bad results and good causes have good results, this would be a big thing, and certainly an obstruction to setting the very first steps on the path to Nirvana. greetings, Sacca 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not know which article to link fundamentals to, but I thought the previously existing link was much better suited for 'More concepts'. Linking 'buddhism in-depth' to 'buddhist philosophy' is not really suitable I think; it's not the same. So if anybody knows a good article to link to Fundamentals please do make the link. Also if anybody wants to add buddhist philosophy as a link on its own they are free to do so off course. greetings, Sacca 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] needs more Japan

The sidebar is a great overview of the Indian-style continental schools of Buddhism, but it needs some links to other national traditions. How about something along the lines of:

Japan:

• Nichiren
• Pure Land Buddhism
• Shingon
• Zen
• etc.?

I know there's a risk of too much cluttering, but c'mon, no link to Zen?? That seems a bit odd to me.

Similar sections could be made for China to Ch'an and whatnot and for Tibet to the Four Schools.

--66.8.203.13 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

China and Japan fall under East Asia, just like Vietnam and Myanmar fall under South-east Asia. Also, Zen falls under Mahayana, just like the Thai Forest Tradition falls under Theravada, and the Gelugpa falls under Vajrayana. It would be too much to put all the sects in all those countries in this list. So better just leave it as it is.Greetings, Sacca 07:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated image

Heya folks, I've gone ahead and converted User:Thedonut's (very nice) lotus image into an SVG version. Its default size is 75 pixels square, just like in the series template, but it scales up and down pretty well:

I'm considering swapping this one in for the current PNG version. I know we're supposed to be bold and all, but since this would affect so many pages with the template I figured I ought to get people's input first. — Xaonon (Talk) 08:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and changed it. I'm impatient. That's a form of boldness, right?  :/ — Xaonon (Talk) 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

nice picture :) --85.181.7.79 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Xaonon, many thanks for converting my image. I need to learn how to do that. It looks wonderful! Thedonut 02:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All, I've added more images and for example. Thedonut 03:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice! I like those better than mine; they look more organic and hand-drawn. I've uploaded a new version of the combined image using those two as a basis. — Xaonon (Talk) 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh... crud. The 35px and 75px images are showing up blank for me now. Is my browser cache just having fun at my expense, or did they really not update properly for some reason? — Xaonon (Talk) 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem: on one PC I've used, I see nothing but the orange background of the header; on the other, where the picture's supposed to be, I only see a white square. FWIW, when I click on the white square, it links to the picture itself. Any help fixing this would be appreciated! Thanks ahead of time :-) , Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay, it looks like it's working now. Guess it must've just taken a while to clear out the old images. — Xaonon (Talk) 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bhavacakra

I've stuck the template in Bhavacakra article with a bit of improvisation. It isn't on the template itself. Could someone change/remove etc as necessary. Squidnchips 11:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template colors

This template's border has been changed from red to grey and thinned by two pixels. Aesthetically, I don't object to this change it. (It does possibly create extra work since, for instance, a number of other Buddhism-related templates follow this template's color scheme.) More importantly, it makes me wonder what the basis for this template's colors is/was. For instance, the red and saffron scheme reminded me of the monastic robes of different schools. Was this the intent? If so, should it be restored? Or should we develop a more intentional color scheme for our templates? Thanks for any guidance or thoughts, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and reverted since other templates on Buddhism is using the same color scheme. Please discuss.--149.4.108.176 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, it appears that User:216.254.121.169 edited in the current red (#AF4630) border on 13 July 2006 and the current yellow (#FFFFCC) background on 14 July 2006 (after experimenting with various background colors on 13 July 2006). I'll post a note to this user's talk page to ask if there was any Buddhism-specific basis for the chosen colors.

Regardless, perhaps the issue of intentionally developing a Buddhism-related scheme might still have merit. For instance, the color scheme could reflect the different sects' robes' colors or the various colors of the Buddhist flag, etc.

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Some examples of robe colors can be found: here, here and here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Larry Rosenfeld (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for this discussion. Yes, I based the color scheme on robes (Tibetan) and generally the colors we think of when we think of Buddhism (saffron, reddish orange, yellow...etc.)...--216.254.121.169 01:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the confirmation! Nice work! Perhaps we could put a statement between <noinclude> </noinclude> GML on the template page itself to identify this, to discourage future changes made without a Buddhist basis. For instance:

The color scheme of this page is based on the vibrant colors of monastic robes including:

• the burgundy outer and yellow under robes of Tibetan monastics
• the black robes of Zen moastics
• the saffron/ochre robes of Theravada monastics

Actually, towards this end, I'd like to try to more vigorously apply a pan-Buddhist color scheme so, with your blessing, I'll try to expand the colors used and see how long it lasts. If they last for a week, I'll see about spreading the scheme to other Buddhism templates (particularly the ones I created). (If anyone wants to join in this evolution of the scheme or simply reject it with a revert, please feel free to do so!) Thanks again for your great work User:216.254.121.169! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what I've done is an aesthetic improvement — hopefully not a significant aesthetic depreciation — but I think it does more consistently show Buddhism's diverse colors (representative of its diverse schools). (Perhaps there's a need for more Mahayana black or brown or gray?) IMHO, I think the subheader colors make the template more readable although I realize the trade-off is that the template has now expanded in length. Well, feel free to discuss here or try tweaking, etc. Any feedback appreciated. & I certainly hope the changes haven't caused any negative feelings and regret if they do. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Larry, I appreciate your efforts on this matter, and your colour scheme ideas seem pretty cool in theory. However, I happen to hold the perhaps unpopular view that this template has gotten much too large and obtrusive. If I were the only editor, I would revert back to this version. The current one is multiple times over longer than a lot of articles. Your changes make it both lengthier and the colours more eye-catching. Under the circumstances, I think FrummerThanThou's version was an improvement.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nat! As always, thanks for the excellent feedback. I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to create another simpler template, to re-instantiate this version to which you pointed. (Perhaps, "Template:BuddhismBrief"?) Personally, I think the overall content of the current template is useful and it also matches similar templates for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, etc.; nonetheless, I can easily recall articles in which the simpler version would be far more appropriate. As for the color scheme, I respect your opinion. If you chose to revert it, I'd be happy with that. (I'll hold off on propagating these colors to other Buddhism-related templates for now and won't do so if you choose to revert this template's colors.) Thanks so much again. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

the only complaint with this template -- too big --- otherwise nice color scheme and good arrangements of the topics -- gives a good overall basic and easy list of Buddhism topics from the template.--149.4.108.27 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful feedback! Regardless of what happens to the color scheme, in the next day or two or three I'll start a new thread below to attempt to address the size issue (e.g., what size should we shoot for, what criteria do we use, identifying a number of possible "tweaks" [e.g., reducing image size, reducing cellpadding, reducing border pixels, merging headers and related content, etc.] or some more significant changes [e.g., eliminating a topic or graphics or all-but-subheader content] to reduce this template's size, suggesting another smaller/simpler/alternate template [as indicated above], etc.). Thanks again. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted a note to Template_talk:Buddhism2 suggesting a modification of its colors (and border) to match this template. The tentative modification includes a suggested simplification of the existing text as well. While the simplified text has caused the template (Buddhism2) to shrink in width, the double border has somehow caused the template to grow in height. So, at this point, I'm a wee hesitant to implement this tenative change -- especially since Buddhism2 is included in close to 250 articles. Any feedback (at Template_talk:Buddhism2#Color_Scheme) is appreciated -- especially any objections (especially from Nat who originally designed the template). Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Figures: Bodhidharma? Tilopa?

To the category of "Major Figures," Nagarjuna and Dogen were recently added. (I think they were inadvertantly deleted soon afterwards, during a broader revert, so I then restored them again.) I think this addition was a positive step especially given that, although myself a Theravada practitioner, I find this template to appear to be weighted toward Indian/Nikaya/Theravada content. From prior study, I'd think it would be important to add Bodhidharma (from Chan/Zen history) as well. Whatcha all think?

In addition, after seeing the addition of Dogen, I felt compelled (from a justice standpoint) to add someone major in the Vajrayana tradition; so, I added Guru Rinpoche. Similarly, if we were to add Bodhidharma, should we also add Tilopa or Marpa or Milarepa? -- though I'm concerned that my ignorance on the topic might offend practitioners of one or more of the other Tibetan schools.

Can anyone provide any suggestions on whether to expand as identified above and, if so, which Vajrayana figure(s) might be most appropriate? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we're courting disaster if we add anyone from the post-canonical period other than Nagarjuna, Buddhaghosa, and Padmasambhava. I know those are all Indians (well, Indian, Sri Lankan, and Pakistani, to be exact), but, then, once you leave India, there's a lot less that Buddhists can agree on. Dogen was an enormously influential man, but I don't know how we can justify including him but excluding Honen and/or Shinran. Even if we did settle on just Dogen, we'd in short order get complaints that we have exalted a Japanese guy but no Chinese people ... what effrontery! What about Zhiyi, or Fazang, or Huineng? The situation with modern people is even worse. Surely, the 14th Dalai Lama is the single most influential Buddhist leader today, but we certainly don't want to perpetuate the misconception that he speaks for all of Buddhism. He isn't even the leader of all Tibetan Buddhists (shortlisting the Dalai Lama creates pressure to add the Karmapa, and then, when those to are on, what, really, is the rationale for excluding the Sakya Trizin, etc.) So, I think we should stick with those three I mentioned above, or, perhaps even better, leave out the post-canonicals altogether. There's really none that all Buddhists can agree on.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nat, as always, thanks so much for your much valued wisdom and insights! In terms of a specific item: Frankly, I was tempted to add Buddhaghosa as well -- certainly one of my icons -- but I thought such might be received poorly by: (a) non-Theravada practitioners; and, (b) the increasing number of Nikaya-only Theravada practitioners. More generally, personally, I value adding representatives of non-Indian origin (though, ironically, I realize a number of my candidates have their origin in Indian subcontinent) because I think such reflects the "practice reality" of practitioners -- for instance, Zen practitioners who know of Bodhidharma and Dogen and Huineng, but really don't know much about anyone outside the Zen lineage. It's that social worker part of my background, wanting to be inclusive of different voices and then attempting to find some intuitive equilibrium for calibrating representation. But, having blabbed on about such, let me say I defer to your thoughts here. I simply don't have the knowledge, wisdom or motivation to pursue it further. So, thanks for the excellent responses. I'll cease & desist on this thread now! Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template size: "terse" parameter

As some might see above, there is concern that this template is too long. While there is a lot that can be debated about this, I decided to experiment with creating a "terse" parameter that would enable editors to (by default) use the current full template or (with a "terse" parameter) use a version of the template that just shows subheaders. Thus the coding would be something like:

• {{Buddhism}} - to show the current full template
• {{Buddhism|terse=1}} - to show subheadings only

An example of how this template might be coded is currently available at User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld/sandbox2.

When this example template is invoked (as {{User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld/sandbox2|terse=1}}) using the terse=1 parameter, it looks like the condensed template off to the right here:

Part of a series on Buddhism
History Foundations Key Concepts Major Figures Practices Regions Schools Texts Portal
view full index

In general, the main advantage is that I believe this template becomes more useful. The main disadvantage is that it becomes more complex to maintain (given the extra complexity of meta-language material, in particular, the #if's).

More specifically, I think some of the advantages of adding this type of functionality would include:

• WP article-editor transparency

• it's transparent to current articles with the template; no changes need to be made
• for articles (such as stubs) where the smaller/terser template is desired, simply add the aforementioned "terse=1" parameter to the template's invocation
• if articles that use the "terse=1" parameter are expanded, then the terse parameter could be easily removed (or set to zero) to allow transclusion of the fully expanded template

• content & design centralization/consistency

• any changes to subheadings or overall design in this template would be apparent in both the fully expanded and terse versions of this template (as opposed to having to alternately synchronize two different templates, a full one and a condensed one).

I believe that the main disadvantage would be:

• template-editing complexity

• this template would become more complex for two reasons:

1. the #if expressions are sprinkled throughout the template and how they work is not intuitively obvious to many (especially newer) WP editors; and,
2. #if expressions cannot be used with wiki-tables (technically speaking, this is due to the "|" [pipe] being an "overloaded operator") and thus this table has to be converted to HTML (which, in the above example template, has already been done).

All-in-all, I'm strongly inclined to add this function but, before doing so, would greatly appreciate others' feedback. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects to this change beforehand, then I'll implement this change next weekend. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As indicated above, I'm gonna make this change presently. If this template change somehow alters any transcluding article, please revert ASAP and identify the affected article & associated impact here. If there are any objections to the change based on the internal coding (for instance, the use of HTML), please state your concern here for discussion and possible future action/reversion. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been playing with the idea of making this template "collapsible." For an example, see the newly added "Hide/Show" field in the top right corner of the tersed template just above. Anyone else have thoughts (pro or con) on this? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC) (Honestly, I wish I could add Java script to make this template collapsible from its normal display mode to the tersed mode, but this is currently beyond my know-how.)

It's been about a dozen days and I find myself repeatedly wishing (when reading WP Buddhism articles) that this [and other] template was collapsible. So, I'm gonna implement this change momentarily.

In summary: In my mind, the primary downside of implementing this is that this will make this non-collapsed template appear slightly wider; the upside is that one can temporarily hide the bulk of the template when trying to read the article.

If anyone zealously disagrees with this change, please revert; if anyone else finds this change unpleasant, please discuss here. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Later movements/teachers

I feel those teachers like Dogen, Nagarjuna, Buddhaghosa and Guru Rinpoche could maybe be linked as a group (later teachers/ commentators), instead of mentioning them individually. The same is done for Buddha's disciples and it would make the template smaller and more to the point.Greetings, Sacca 13:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Saccha! Hope you're doing well. FWIW, I like your idea of condensing the teachers/founders and I think it is worth further discussion. Something that might kind of fit the bill for what you identified could be this list.

If I may add my two cents: Without splitting hairs just yet, I intuit that it might be worthwhile to group non-Nikaya forerunners in groups according to their traditions/schools (to borrow handy terminology Nat & Peter have been teaching me :-) ). For instance, if there were an article on Zen patriarchs or the Zen lineage, I'd think that such an article might be worthwhile including. Secondarily (okay, I'm about to split a big fat hair), I think one could argue that someone like Bodhidharma was historically more important to global Buddhism than most of the Buddha's disciples (with some obvious exceptions being, for instance, strictly from a historical standpoint, Mahakassappa, Upali, Ananda, etc.); so, if we need to condense, I could see some advocating for Bodhidharma or Nagarjuna over the Buddha's Disciples. Perhaps it might be worthwhile first explicitly articulating the criteria for inclusion in this and other sections of this template?

My two cents. I hope you are happy & well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC) [ignorant until proven otherwise]